Granados v. NYS DOCCS
- Laura Swain
- 1:22-cv-08804
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Granados v. NYS DOCCS, Judge Swain deferred screening, paused defendants’ response, and restricted subpoenas.
Delia Granados, the named defendants, potential subpoena recipients, and the Clerk of Court. The defendants’ response deadlines were deferred, and subpoena responses and further subpoena issuance were restricted pending court approval.
What happened
In Granados v. NYS DOCCS, Delia Granados, who is representing herself and was allowed to proceed without paying filing fees in advance, filed a second amended complaint after the court dismissed her earlier filings and allowed her to try again.
The court explained that it must review her second amended complaint before deciding whether the case may proceed. It said defendants do not have to answer or otherwise respond until that review is complete and the court orders that they be served. The court also said no one currently has to respond to subpoenas issued in the case and directed Granados not to request more subpoenas without permission.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain ordered these procedural steps, directed the Clerk not to issue additional subpoenas without express court approval, and denied fee-free status for any appeal because the court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Granados v. NYS DOCCS · No. 1:22-cv-08804
- Laura Swain
- Dec. 21, 2022
Background
Delia Granados brought this action without a lawyer and was allowed to proceed without paying filing fees in advance. She originally filed the action in the Northern District of New York, which transferred it to the Southern District of New York. The court treated her original complaints, amended complaint, supplements, and exhibits as one pleading.
Because Granados was proceeding without prepaying fees, the court was required to screen her complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Screening requires dismissal of claims that are frivolous or malicious, fail to state a claim for relief, or seek money from a defendant protected from that relief. The court also had to dismiss claims if it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning the court lacked legal authority to hear them.
On December 6, 2022, the court dismissed Granados’s earlier pleading for failure to state a claim, because of Eleventh Amendment protection, and for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The court allowed her 30 days to file one second amended complaint addressing the identified problems. Granados filed that second amended complaint on December 19, 2022.
Telephone hearing and subpoenas
Granados also requested a telephone hearing on February 3, 2023, and sought several subpoenas. The court explained that no hearing was scheduled for that date. The earlier order allowing defendants until February 3 to answer or otherwise respond concerned Granados’s prior amended complaint and was issued before that pleading was dismissed with permission to refile.
Court’s action
The court stated that it would screen the second amended complaint later and, if appropriate, issue an order directing service on the defendants. Until that review and service order occur, the defendants are not required to answer or otherwise respond.
The court further ordered that no parties currently have to respond to subpoenas issued in the action. Granados was directed to stop requesting additional subpoenas without the court’s prior permission, and the Clerk of Court was directed not to issue more subpoenas without the court’s express direction.
The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and therefore denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal. This order did not decide whether Granados’s second amended complaint states a valid claim.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.